• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Pre EPO/ Tranfussions "stand out" doped rides?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
ChrisE said:
And? That is a different subject, but if you want to extrapolate how much of an advantage those bars gave him in that TT vs the much longer earlier TT then I am game. I'm not saying they didn't give him an advantage (of course they did), but don't come at me with his performance wasn't eye-opening because others were so close and he used the bars.

I was replying to pmc who was implying that Marie didn't care about the stage because he didn't have the tour at stake. He was doing that in the spirit of "hey, he only beat somebody that didn't care by 33 secs". I was pointing out more than those 2 cared to win that stage for the reasons I stated, especially the French TT guy in a TT finishing on the Champs.
Where did I "come at you" with that?
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Where did I "come at you" with that?
OK, then what is your point in pointing out that he used arrow bars and finished 33 seconds ahead of Marie? My conclusion is that you wrote it because of what you I previously wrote, ie to downplay how extraordinary the GL performance was. If you have another way to spin it then I am all ears.

BTW, have you done the math on extrapolating this last TT on onto the earlier one? You know the earlier TT.....the one where he was fresh and didn't blow up on a mountain 4 days earlier. :cool:

The math says Marie would've finished 1:36 behind GL on a 73 km TT, and Fignon would've finish 2:49 behind.

Why is this interesting? One it is alot of time and puts things more in context, to the contrary of CW/knee jerk GL defense mechanisms in this forum.

Secondly, it makes one scratch one's head and wonder why ultimobici pointed out the narrow margin of 47 secs between Fignon and GL in the earlier TT. It makes my point that the last one was "extraordinary" compared to that one when you look at the extrapolated numbers.

Yet, he offers it up as some type of proof of the opposite in his long baffling post that is now the desktop background on Escarabajo's computer. He writes Fignon had a jour sans yet he finished 3rd in a TT that I argue more riders than he or GL cared to win. Of course, I concede the point this is conjecture but I think it is more logical than what is being floated by him or pmcg76. YMMV.

That, along with the fact he noted that Fignon had a better team that could shelter him more, tend to him more, throughout the GT. That also makes GL's last performance more "extraordinary" since theoretically GL had to spend more energy fending for himself.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
ChrisE said:
OK, then what is your point in pointing out that he used arrow bars and finished 33 seconds ahead of Marie? My conclusion is that you wrote it because of what you I previously wrote, ie to downplay how extraordinary the GL performance was. If you have another way to spin it then I am all ears.

BTW, have you done the math on extrapolating this last TT on onto the earlier one? You know the earlier TT.....the one where he was fresh and didn't blow up on a mountain 4 days earlier. :cool:

The math says Marie would've finished 1:36 behind GL on a 73 km TT, and Fignon would've finish 2:49 behind.

Why is this interesting? One it is alot of time and puts things more in context, to the contrary of CW/knee jerk GL defense mechanisms in this forum.

Secondly, it makes one scratch one's head and wonder why ultimobici pointed out the narrow margin of 47 secs between Fignon and GL in the earlier TT. It makes my point that the last one was "extraordinary" compared to that one when you look at the extrapolated numbers.

Yet, he offers it up as some type of proof of the opposite in his long baffling post that is now the desktop background on Escarabajo's computer. He writes Fignon had a jour sans yet he finished 3rd in a TT that I argue more riders than he or GL cared to win. Of course, I concede the point this is conjecture but I think it is more logical than what is being floated by him or pmcg76. YMMV.

That, along with the fact he noted that Fignon had a better team that could shelter him more, tend to him more, throughout the GT. That also makes GL's last performance more "extraordinary" since theoretically GL had to spend more energy fending for himself.
So - the answer is no - I did not "come at you". Thanks.
 
ChrisE said:
OK, then what is your point in pointing out that he used arrow bars and finished 33 seconds ahead of Marie? My conclusion is that you wrote it because of what you I previously wrote, ie to downplay how extraordinary the GL performance was. If you have another way to spin it then I am all ears.

BTW, have you done the math on extrapolating this last TT on onto the earlier one? You know the earlier TT.....the one where he was fresh and didn't blow up on a mountain 4 days earlier. :cool:

The math says Marie would've finished 1:36 behind GL on a 73 km TT, and Fignon would've finish 2:49 behind.

Why is this interesting? One it is alot of time and puts things more in context, to the contrary of CW/knee jerk GL defense mechanisms in this forum.

Secondly, it makes one scratch one's head and wonder why ultimobici pointed out the narrow margin of 47 secs between Fignon and GL in the earlier TT. It makes my point that the last one was "extraordinary" compared to that one when you look at the extrapolated numbers.

Yet, he offers it up as some type of proof of the opposite in his long baffling post that is now the desktop background on Escarabajo's computer. He writes Fignon had a jour sans yet he finished 3rd in a TT that I argue more riders than he or GL cared to win. Of course, I concede the point this is conjecture but I think it is more logical than what is being floated by him or pmcg76. YMMV.

That, along with the fact he noted that Fignon had a better team that could shelter him more, tend to him more, throughout the GT. That also makes GL's last performance more "extraordinary" since theoretically GL had to spend more energy fending for himself.

So your logic is that people should finish in relative time proximity to the first TT, surely even you can see some people improve, some get worse. Losing 1-30 in a mountain stage to a superior climber is hardly a jour sans either.

Do you believe that on mountain stages, people should also finish within the same time as each other every stage. Dont think so and you accuse us of having no logic.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
pmcg76 said:
So your logic is that people should finish in relative time proximity to the first TT, surely even you can see some people improve, some get worse. Losing 1-30 in a mountain stage to a superior climber is hardly a jour sans either.

Do you believe that on mountain stages, people should also finish within the same time as each other every stage. Dont think so and you accuse us of having no logic.
I'm sorry. Please reread the thread title and the posts that I am replying to, and my replies. Carefully this time. Thanks.

I posted his last TT was extraordinary, and I get showered with pretzel logic "proving" it wasn't. You with your "nobody cared about the stage" and ulti with his weird reply I poked a couple of gaping holes into above.

I rebut these arguments with my take, then you accuse me with this post. If you want to debate me, be prepared for it to come back at you. If you don't agree, then agree to disagree and move on instead of resorting to chasing me around the forum with ad hominems. Thanks.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
So - the answer is no - I did not "come at you". Thanks.
On the contrary - you have no answer other than what I said about why you posted what you did. You replied to a post of mine that wasn't directed to you with some diversionary BS meant to do exactly what I said you meant to do. :D

FYI, I'm at work. I usually post at night after several beers but today you have 100% of non-beer induced ChrisE posts. So, pay attention doc. :D
 
ChrisE said:
I'm sorry. Please reread the thread title and the posts that I am replying to, and my replies. Carefully this time. Thanks.

I posted his last TT was extraordinary, and I get showered with pretzel logic "proving" it wasn't. You with your "nobody cared about the stage" and ulti with his weird reply I poked a couple of gaping holes into above.

I rebut these arguments with my take, then you accuse me with this post. If you want to debate me, be prepared for it to come back at you. If you don't agree, then agree to disagree and move on instead of resorting to chasing me around the forum with ad hominems. Thanks.
Jeez, I thought this was a forum where people disagree on what they see as flaws in other posts, whether its right or wrong.

You describe what others post as "pretzel logic" and and then moan when someone responds . Aw you poor guy, life must be tough for you.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Look at it this way...with 1k to go the tv coverage showed Otto and Kathy and someone said 48 seconds.. If he had just held that he would have lost the tour by 2 seconds and we would not be having this discussion...but he gained 10 more sec.. TEN SECONDS.. (about the time it took to read this)..
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,745
0
0
ChrisE said:
OK, then what is your point in pointing out that he used arrow bars and finished 33 seconds ahead of Marie? My conclusion is that you wrote it because of what you I previously wrote, ie to downplay how extraordinary the GL performance was. If you have another way to spin it then I am all ears.

BTW, have you done the math on extrapolating this last TT on onto the earlier one? You know the earlier TT.....the one where he was fresh and didn't blow up on a mountain 4 days earlier. :cool:

The math says Marie would've finished 1:36 behind GL on a 73 km TT, and Fignon would've finish 2:49 behind.

Why is this interesting? One it is alot of time and puts things more in context, to the contrary of CW/knee jerk GL defense mechanisms in this forum.

Secondly, it makes one scratch one's head and wonder why ultimobici pointed out the narrow margin of 47 secs between Fignon and GL in the earlier TT. It makes my point that the last one was "extraordinary" compared to that one when you look at the extrapolated numbers.

Yet, he offers it up as some type of proof of the opposite in his long baffling post that is now the desktop background on Escarabajo's computer. He writes Fignon had a jour sans yet he finished 3rd in a TT that I argue more riders than he or GL cared to win. Of course, I concede the point this is conjecture but I think it is more logical than what is being floated by him or pmcg76. YMMV.

That, along with the fact he noted that Fignon had a better team that could shelter him more, tend to him more, throughout the GT. That also makes GL's last performance more "extraordinary" since theoretically GL had to spend more energy fending for himself.
Did you miss the point I made about the saddle sore that Fignon himself complained about?

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/archive/382984/1989-how-it-happened.html

Stage 21, Versailles-Paris Champs Elysées
The greatest Tour de France of all time came to a dramatic conclusion on the Champs Elysées, when Greg LeMond overturned Laurent Fignon’s 50 second lead, and added another eight seconds, in only 25 kilometres. LeMond used tri-bars again, and powered his way to the finish, while Fignon, complaining of a saddle sore, looked ungainly. Eight seconds remains the closest Tour finish.
If he couldn't sit straight on the saddle, how on earth was he supposed to put in a good time?

My post was rational in the extreme. I merely stated the facts of the race. The race saw the lead see-saw between Lemond & Fignon with barely a minute between them at any stage. If anything the 89 Tour shows pre-EPO cycling at it's height. The right protagonists fought it out, there were few if any intruders to the elite club then.

As I requested a while back, where is your reasoned counterargument?
 
May 2, 2009
256
0
0
Are you guys really that easy? ChrisE does one of his usual baiting posts and you spend the next 24 (so far) posts talking about LeMond in a 80s doping thread.

edit: should read pre-90s. That's what I get for posting without coffee.
 
Oct 9, 2009
85
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I think you are mistaken here.
Many members of the USA team were blood doped - which has been proven, but there was nothing about Grewals win.

And when Grewal ultimatley confess to doping I do not remeber him ever mentioning blood doping.

For me - Grewal always was the opposite of what this thread is about - in that Grewal was a natural talent, yet could not live in the life of a European Pro (for many reasons).
Sorry, I was under the impression that the whole team including Grewal's blood doped. Must have been a faulty source. The more I read the clinic, the more despair sets in and I get disgusted. I just wanna see people ride bikes like maniacs.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,745
0
0
ChrisE said:
BTW, have you done the math on extrapolating this last TT on onto the earlier one? You know the earlier TT.....the one where he was fresh and didn't blow up on a mountain 4 days earlier. :cool:

The math says Marie would've finished 1:36 behind GL on a 73 km TT, and Fignon would've finish 2:49 behind.
No saddle sore = happy camper who can concentrate on riding rather that squirming around to find a comfortable position. Marie had buried himself on the TTT, so 1'36" is not surprising at all.

Why is this interesting? One it is alot of time and puts things more in context, to the contrary of CW/knee jerk GL defense mechanisms in this forum.
In what way was it a knee-jerk reaction or is this directed at someone else? BTW what is CW a reference to?

Secondly, it makes one scratch one's head and wonder why ultimobici pointed out the narrow margin of 47 secs between Fignon and GL in the earlier TT. It makes my point that the last one was "extraordinary" compared to that one when you look at the extrapolated numbers.
It is irrelevant to compare the 73km TT with the 24.5km TT. The first was after only 4 days and no mountains. Just scaling up the differences is totally misleading.

Yet, he offers it up as some type of proof of the opposite in his long baffling post that is now the desktop background on Escarabajo's computer. He writes Fignon had a jour sans yet he finished 3rd in a TT that I argue more riders than he or GL cared to win. Of course, I concede the point this is conjecture but I think it is more logical than what is being floated by him or pmcg76. YMMV.
Motivation has an amazing effect on one's abilities. Lemond was 51" away from a fairytale return to the top of the sport. Fignon went into the day having already congratulated Lemond on his 2nd place, but when Guimard stopped giving him time-checks he notes that his confidence deserted him. Many other riders would undoubtedly have been motivated for the win, but few if any used tri-bars, and none had a hope of anything but a stage win. Lemond had a place in history.

That, along with the fact he noted that Fignon had a better team that could shelter him more, tend to him more, throughout the GT. That also makes GL's last performance more "extraordinary" since theoretically GL had to spend more energy fending for himself.
Find yourself a copy of the 1989 edition of the Tour/Giro summary published by Kennedy Brothers. You'll see that it wasn't as extraordinary as you allege. Pre EPO it was nigh on impossible to set the kind of tempo we saw Banesto and then Postal setting on mountain stages. It was much more mano-a-mano. Plus Delgado and his Reynolds team were a threat to Fignon. He lost 6'26" in the prologue & TTT yet finished third overall at just 3'34" down. Fignon couldn't allow him any freedom and Lemond must have profited from this.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
B.Rasmussen said:
Are you guys really that easy? ChrisE does one of his usual baiting posts and you spend the next 24 (so far) posts talking about LeMond in a 80s doping thread.

edit: should read pre-90s. That's what I get for posting without coffee.
"ChrisE's baiting posts" is forum code for "ChrisE is talking mean about GL". I get it. :rolleyes:

Anyway, we've cleared it up and I concede defeat! :p

Fignon's saddle sore, his superior team, results from the first TT, and Marie's indifference to winning the stage is what caused them to finish 3rd and 2nd respectively in the last TT, as well as making GL's performance ordinary. I've really been put in my place in this thread. :mad:

Yes, let's move on before I jump out the window. I know some of you may like that but it would suck for me.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
B.Rasmussen said:
Are you guys really that easy? ChrisE does one of his usual baiting posts and you spend the next 24 (so far) posts talking about LeMond in a 80s doping thread.

edit: should read pre-90s. That's what I get for posting without coffee.
ras, they know...most know by now.

had he not been under a special warning after the last multi-months ban, he'd unleash name calling and insults and his sock puppets to help him.

as it is (and how nice of him) he only had to whine about ad himinems and offtopic.

this subject of lemond has been discussed for years and he used the same tired flaming to save the home state idol.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS